USPTO Patents Application 09870801

Civil Action No. 01-504-SLR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ARTHROCARE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

v.

SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. ,
Defendant .

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

ArthroCare Corporation, plaintiff, and Smith & Nephew,
defendant, came before the Court for a trial by jury. On May 12,
2003, the jury rendered a verdict (D.I. 405, copy attached) on
the issues of patent infringement of claims 46, 47, and 56 of the
"536 patent, claims 13, 17, and 54 of the "882 patent, claims 1,
3, 4, 11, 21, 23, 26, 27, 32, and 42 of the "592 patent and of
patent invalidity of claims 46, 47, and 56 of the "536 patent,
claims 13, 17, and 54 of the "882 patent, and claims 1, 3, 4, 11,
21, 23, 26, 27, 32, and 42 of the "592 patent and of patent
enablement of claims 13, 17, and 54 of the "882 patent and of
patent validity of the Certificate of Correction of claim 1 of
the "882 patent. The jury found for plaintiff as to all issues.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is
hereby entered in favor of ArthroGare Corporation, plaintiff, and
against Smith & Nephew, defendant.

United States District Judge
Dated: June 20, 2003

(By) Deputy Clerk

m THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

ARTHROCARE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff

SMITH & NEPHEW, INC.

Defendant

SMITH & NEPHEW, INC.,

Counterclaim Plaintiff,

ARTHROCARE CORPORATION, AND
ETHICON, INC.,

Counterclaim Defendants.

C.A.No.Ol-504-SLR

JURY VERDICT
We, the jury, unanimously find as follows:

I.

INFRINGEMENT OF ARTHROCARE'S PATENTS
A. The <536 Patent

Direct Infringement by Smith & Nephew of the '536 Patent

1 . Do you find that Arthrocare has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
Smith & Nephew has directly infringed any of the following claims of the 4 536 patent with its
Saphyre, ElectroBlade, or Control RF products? ( iC YES" answers to these questions are findings
for ArthroCare. "NO" answers are findings for Smith & Nephew.)

Inducement of Infringement by Smith & Nephew

2. Do you find that Arthrocare has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
Smith & Nephew has induced infringement by others of any of the following claims of the c 536
patent with its Saphyre, ElectroBlade, or Control RF products? ("YES" answers to these
questions are findings for ArthroCare, ''NO" answers are findings for Smith & Nephew,)

1 ife

*536

46

^YES) NO

(iris) no

(YES) NO

•536

47

£ye§L no

(yesT) no

^YEsT) NO

*536

56

(YES) NO

(fES) NO

£yes) NO

1

Contributory Infringement by Smith & Nephew

3 . Do you find that Arthrocare has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
Smith & Nephew has contributed to the infringement any of the following claims of the '536
patent with its Saphyre, ElectroBlade, or Control RF products? ("YES" answers to these
questions are findings for ArthroCare, "NO" answers are findings for Smith & Nephew.)

r.:r: -■^' J ;r.:v.-.0;;.v.uj

' : ■]

;■ ,/)

'536'

46

NO

NO

NO

•536

47

NO

. YES^

)no

<

NO

'536

56

NO

^NO

CyesJ)

NO

2

B. The <882 Patent
Validity of ArthroCare's Certificate of Correction for the '882 Patent

4. Do you find that Smith & Nephew has shown by clear and convincing evidence
that the certificate of correction for claim 1 of the '882 patent is invalid? (A "YES" answer to
this question is a finding for Smith & Nephew. A "NO" answer is a finding for ArthroCare.)

Answer questions 5-6 only if you have answered "NO" in question 4.

Inducement of Infringement by Smith & Nephew of the '882 Patent

5. Do you find that Arthrocare has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
Smith & Nephew has induced infringement by others of any of the following claims of the c 882
patent with its Saphyre or Control RF products? ("YES" answers to these questions are findings
for ArthroCare. <c NO" answers are findings for Smith & Nephew.)

3

Contributory Infringement by Smith & Nephew of the '882 Patent

6. Do you find that Arthrocare has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
Smith & Nephew has contributed to the infringement of any of the following claims of the '882
patent with its Saphyre or Control RF products? ("YES" answers to these questions are findings
for ArthroCare. "NO" answers are findings for Smith & Nephew.)

C. The '592 Patent

Inducement of Infringement by Smith & Nephew of the '592 Patent

7. Do you find that Arthrocare has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
Smith & Nephew has induced infringement by others of any of the following claims of the '592
patent with its Saphyre, EiectroBlade, or Control RF products? ('TBS" answers to these
questions are findings for ArthroCare. "NO" answers are findings for Smith & Nephew.)

5

Contributory Infringement by Smith & Nephew of the *592 Patent

8. Do you find that Arthrocare has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
Smith & Nephew has contributed to the infringement of any of the following claims of the '592
patent with its Saphyre, ElectroBlade, or Control RF products? (**YES" answers to these
questions are findings for ArthroCare. ,C N0" answers are findings for Smith & Nephew.)

6

II. VALIDITY OF ARTHROCARE'S PATENTS
A. Anticipation of ArthroCare's Patents

9. Do you find that Smith & Nephew has shown by clear and convincing evidence
that the following claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid due to anticipation? (A "YES" answer
to this question is a finding for Smith & Nephew. A "NO" answer is a finding for ArthroCare.)

The '536 Patent

The '882 Patent

[SIM

Claim 13

YES

Claim 17

yes yw\

Claim 54

YES

>

The '592 Patent

Claim 1

YES

/too)

Claim 3

YES tffcfl

Claim 4

YES

Claim 11

YES ?K0)

Claim 21

YES

<fNQ>

Claim 23

YES

im>

Claim 26

YES

mb

Claim 27

YES

Claim 32

YES <fNO>

Claim 42

YES

Cnoj

7

D. Enablement of ArthroCare's Patent

1 0. Do you find that Smith & Nephew has shown by clear and convincing
evidence that the following claims are invalid for lack of enablement? (A "YES" answer
to this question is a finding for Smith & Nephew. A **NO" answer is a finding for
ArthroCare.)

mmmm

•882

13,17,54

YES (no)

8

Each Juror should sign the verdict form to
reached

Dated: May ;2, 2003

that a unanimous verdict has been

This Page is Inserted by IFW Indexing and Scanning
Operations and is not part of the Official Record

Defective images within this document are accurate representations of the original
documents submitted by the applicant.

Defects in the images include but are not limited to the items checked:

□ BLACK BORDERS

□ IMAGE CUT OFF AT TOP, BOTTOM OR SIDES

□ BLURRED OR ILLEGIBLE TEXT OR DRAWING

□ SKEWED/SLANTED IMAGES

□ COLOR OR BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPHS

□ GRAY SCALE DOCUMENTS

□ LINES OR MARKS ON ORIGINAL DOCUMENT

□ REFERENCE(S) OR EXHIBIT(S) SUBMITTED ARE POOR QUALITY

□ OTHER:

IMAGES ARE BEST AVAILABLE COPY.
As rescanning these documents will not correct the image
problems checked, please do not report these problems to
the IFW Image Problem Mailbox.

BEST AVAILABLE IMAGES

FADED TEXT OR DRAWING

THIS PAGE IS BLANK